Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?

[ferryman]

I was only referring to the clean up tissues.

VT / 9 Trench and gun emplacement containing small personnel shelter. Forensic examination revealed recently deposited tissues that appeared to have been used to ‘clean up following sexual intercourse’. It would appear that the shelter had been used as a venue for courting couples. This alert is within the trained parameters of the dog’s repertoire and is a satisfactory explanation of the alert.

http://voiceforprotest.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/operation-rectangle-summary-report.html

[Carana]

VT / 9 Trench and gun emplacement containing small personnel shelter. Forensic examination revealed recently deposited tissues that appeared to have been used to ‘clean up following sexual intercourse’. It would appear that the shelter had been used as a venue for courting couples. This alert is within the trained parameters of the dog’s repertoire and is a satisfactory explanation of the alert.

Keela also reacted to those tissues. So it could have been a speck of blood that Eddie reacted to. However, what is not clear is whether Grime wrote up those notes AFTER (or in light of) Keela's reaction, or whether the obvious nature of what had been found was within his training parameters anyway (irrespective of Keela's reaction).

[Benice]

Why? You don't know what Kate (6-7pm) or Gerry was wearing earlier and I didn't see his blue jeans, button trousers or what looks like a black jacket on the sofa in the dogs footage.

The dogs footage was three months after the 3rd - why would anyone expect to see the clothing GM wore on the 3rd to appear in that footage.

It's been suggested that GM disposed of Madeleine's body some time after they went to dinner.  If that was true his clothes would have been strongly contaminated IMO.   There is no suggestion that he or KM changed their clothes that night and so after spending hours in the Payne's apartment wearing them  - it is reasonable to assume that cross contamination would have occurred from such a strongly contaminated source. imo.

   

[ferryman]

Keela also reacted to those tissues. So it could have been a speck of blood that Eddie reacted to. However, what is not clear is whether Grime wrote up those notes AFTER (or in light of) Keela's reaction, or whether the obvious nature of what had been found was within his training parameters anyway (irrespective of Keela's reaction).

I'm sure you're right.

But I don't recall reading that detail?

[ferryman]

Purely randomly, I've picked up this from Eddie's searches in Jersey:

The EVRD was deployed tactically within the ground floor of the premises where a continuing alert indication of varying strength was given in the western aspect. The weakest being in the south-western corridor, the strongest and most significant being in the north-western stairwell.

The reactions of the dog are explained as scent travelling through  ‘chimneys’ such as conduit, electric cable ducting, which transects from the north west stairwell along the western corridor in a southerly direction.

So why, in his PdL rogatory interview, does Grime say, that there is no variation in the response of the "EVRD"?

Grime says that apparent "variations" in the strength of a response is explained in purely physiological terms, such as thirst or lack of oxygen following extreme physical exertion. 

When "EVRD" is certain of the scent he is trained to detect (Grime tells us!) he barks.

Hmmmm!

[Carana]

I'm sure you're right.

But I don't recall reading that detail?

In that report:

On 9 July 2008 entry to the site was made and work commenced.


All constructed defensive positions identified by archive information were located marked VT / 1-VT / 10 and plotted by GPS. A further position was located from photographic archive material by intrusive excavation and was included numbered VT /11. It is possible that further positions may be located during the operation.


The EVRD was deployed in a wide area screening sweep of the site. The following alert indications were forthcoming:


VT / 9 Trench and gun emplacement containing small personnel shelter. Forensic examination revealed recently deposited tissues that appeared to have been used to ‘clean up following sexual intercourse’. It would appear that the shelter had been used as a venue for courting couples. This alert is within the trained parameters of the dog’s repertoire and is a satisfactory explanation of the alert.

Further on:

(...)
V/T 9 Re-enforced concrete machine gun post and protective trench, personnel shelter attached. Earth and debris removed by hand and plant machinery to allow access.


The forensic strategy was implemented with the following results.


EVRD – positive indication.

SOCO visual – positive.

Blood dog - positive indication.

Visual – positive

UV – negative (items removed prior to screening).

Quasar - negative

Positive indications confirmed as being recently deposited tissues used to clean up after sex by unknown persons. Offences not suspected at this stage. Retained as exhibit should there be future reports of offences. There will be no forensic submission at this stage.

http://voiceforprotest.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/operation-rectangle-summary-report.html

[gilet]

What on earth are you talking about Benice?  Martin Grime has not commented on any aspect of this case which would in any way compromise his impartiality.  Serendipity on the other hand is free to offer his/her opinion based on first hand knowledge of the dogs and their deployments. They have already exposed the 'poacher' as an imposter.

I hope to have some photos of the dogs in action very soon, photos which have never ever been seen in public before.  Then we will see who is the fantasist.

I wonder what the definition is of "soon"?

Any sign of the photos?

I am intrigued to know who the fantasist really is because I don't believe everything I am told (without a shred of evidence) by any person whose "knowledge of Grime and the dogs is extensive" but who oddly cannot be called an expert.

[gilet]

I wonder what the definition is of "soon"?

Any sign of the photos?

I am intrigued to know who the fantasist really is because I don't believe everything I am told (without a shred of evidence) by any person whose "knowledge of Grime and the dogs is extensive" but who oddly cannot be called an expert.

Bumpity bump!

Perhaps John has been too busy deleting the vile abuse and disgusting remarks from certain posters today and has missed this question?

[Benice]

Bumpity bump!

Perhaps John has been too busy deleting the vile abuse and disgusting remarks from certain posters today and has missed this question?

Indeed.  I am still waiting to know what has happened for Martin Grime to change his mind about it not being appropriate for him to comment on this ongoing case because he may be called as a witness at a trial  - to suddenly being quite happy to comment as long as it is is through a third party who just happens to be an out and out 'sceptic'.  In fact a 'sceptic' who has already announced  on this forum that Martin Grime believes Eddie alerted to a dead body - inspite of his many assertions that without corroborating evidence such an assumption is a definite 'NO NO'.

[John]

Indeed.  I am still waiting to know what has happened for Martin Grime to change his mind about it not being appropriate for him to comment on this ongoing case because he may be called as a witness at a trial  - to suddenly being quite happy to comment as long as it is is through a third party who just happens to be an out and out 'sceptic'.  In fact a 'sceptic' who has already announced  on this forum that Martin Grime believes Eddie alerted to a dead body - inspite of his many assertions that without corroborating evidence such an assumption is a definite 'NO NO'.

Serendipity's views are his/her own, they do not or should not be taken to represent those of Martin Grime.   As has already been explained on several occasions, Serendipity is not an expert but has first-hand knowledge of the dogs in question.

I am still awaiting the photos referred to.

[Cornelius]

Yesterday a poster on here, no names no packdrill, said very scathingly that dogs had been done to death or words to that effect.
I see that this forum has getting on for a thousand posts on dogs without much of a conclusion so I would concur.

[sadie]

Yesterday a poster on here, no names no packdrill, said very scathingly that dogs had been done to death or words to that effect.
I see that this forum has getting on for a thousand posts on dogs without much of a conclusion so I would concur.

There are some very sound conclusions Cornelius, but many prefer to bury their heads in the sands rather than accept them

[gilet]

Yesterday a poster on here, no names no packdrill, said very scathingly that dogs had been done to death or words to that effect.
I see that this forum has getting on for a thousand posts on dogs without much of a conclusion so I would concur.

The most important conclusions are those drawn by Martin Grime.

He concluded that the dog alerts had no evidential value without forensic corroboration and we are all aware that no forensic corroboration was found.  The dog alerts are not evidence of a death, never mind the death of Madeleine.

He also concluded that the alerts were "suggestive of cadaver odour". He did not even state with certainty that they show that cadaver odour actually present in the locations and on the objects alerted to.

And just for information there is absolutely nothing in Martin Grime's report about a cadaver ever having been present in the apartment or car. At best the alerts are suggestive of cadaver odour.

The fact that so many people over the years (including members of the PJ) demonstrate / have demonstrated  a belief that the dogs alerted to a cadaver and that the alerts are somehow proof of a cadaver (never mind the idiots who go on to assume that any such cadaver would have to have been Madeleine) shows just how badly those people have understood the report.

No reference to a cadaver at all, merely the suggestion that there might have been cadaver odour and those who understand the situation realise that such odour can easily be present where no cadaver has ever been.

[slartibartfast]

No reference to a cadaver at all, merely the suggestion that there might have been cadaver odour and those who understand the situation realise that such odour can easily be present where no cadaver has ever been.

So why have the authorities identified where the odour came from?

[Alfred R Jones]

So why have the authorities identified where the odour came from?

Where did they say the odour come from?  How were they able to identify the odour and its source?